PubMed · 9620041
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S M Skoumal. 1998. Automated screening.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9620041/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The performance of the ABX Vega haematology analyser was compared with that of the Sysmex NE-8000, with specific attention to flagging performance and ergonomics. Eight hundred routine samples underwent precision and interinstrument variability studies and 168 samples corresponding to various blood disorders were studied meanwhile. Results from the two instruments gave excellent correlation (r > 0.900) for most parameters except MCHC (r = 0.114), basophil and monocyte percentages (r = 0.617 and 0.552, respectively). The reproducibility, repeatability, linearity, carry-over and stability of the Vega were satisfactory; 'flagging' occurred in 31% of routine samples with sensitivity 88.8%, specificity 41.3% and positive predictive value 85.7%. Various flags appeared in 91% (42/46) of cases where blast cells were microscopically identified. In the four remaining cases, CBC anomalies would themselves have justified microscopic examination of a smear. On 'CBC only' mode reagent consumption was significantly reduced. In the laboratory the analyser was best appreciated for its user-friendliness.
BACKGROUND: Analysis of urinary free catecholamines was automated recently, but analysis of plasma samples posed special difficulties. The present study was undertaken to evaluate a new method for the automated analysis of plasma catecholamines. METHODS: The procedure is based on an improved sample handling system that includes dialysis and sample clean-up on a strong cation trace-enrichment cartridge. The catecholamines norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine are then separated by reversed-phase ion-pair chromatography and quantified by electrochemical detection. RESULTS: Use of a 740- microL sample is required to give the catecholamine detection limit of 0.05 nmol/L and analytical imprecision (CV) between 1.1% and 9.3%. The assay can be run unattended, although >12 h of analysis time is not recommended without cooling of the autosampler rack. Comparison (n = 68) of the automated cation-exchange clean-up with the well-established manual alumina procedure gave excellent agreement (mean, 3.78 +/- 2.76 and 3.8 +/- 2.89 nmol/L for norepinephrine and 0.99 +/- 1.72 and 1.08 +/- 1.78 nmol/L for epinephrine). Hemodialysis had no clear effect on plasma norepinephrine. Epinephrine concentrations were similar (0.05 < P < 0.1) in chronic renal failure patients (0.24 +/- 0.3 nmol/L; n = 15) and healthy controls (0.5 +/- 0.24 nmol/L; n = 31). Dopamine was not quantified, being usually <0.2 nmol/L. CONCLUSION: The availability of such a fully automated procedure should encourage the more widespread use of plasma catecholamine estimation, e.g., after dialysis, exercise, or trauma/surgery and in the investigation of catecholamine-secreting tumors, particularly in the anuric patient.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.